Re-Elect George Bush ABQjournal Opinion

While the record is mixed, the recommendation, ultimately, is to re-elect George W. Bush, aside from the mistakes — one of which is great reluctance to admit to mistakes. One hopes the administration has learned from these mistakes. [A]ll of these ultimately are trumped by the wild card of terrorism, the issue on which the president is the clear choice. The Journal endorses the re-election of President Bush.

It is possible to be shocked but not surprised. The next time someone writes to complain about the Albuquerque Journal’s liberalism, you won’t have to point to Ramirez, Trevor, Dimdahl, the aptly-named Prickly City or a host of conservative voices that appear daily. Instead, direct such a mistaken reader to your endorsement of George Duhbya Bush. This decision, presumably a consensus of many staffers and the owner-publisher, is based on one argument: it’s all about terror. It’s not. Still, this should silence whining conservatives (if only…) and, perhaps, even console them in their misery on Nov 3rd. mjh

John Kerry for President – Newspaper and Media Endorsements

Daily Endorsement Tally: Bush Has a Big Day, But Kerry is Still Eking Out a Win

[T]he count of daily papers [is] 208-190 in favor of Kerry. ,,,

Kerry continues to easily hold the edge in the circulation of papers supporting him by a roughly 4-3 margin.

More than 60 papers that backed Bush in 2000 have now switched to Kerry or endorsed neither candidate. Fewer than 10 switched the other way after backing Al Gore in 2000.

You’ve seen the lists showing who served in the military and who has not (in summary, Democrats have overwhelmingly served and Republicans have avoided service).

I wonder if a similar divide occurs in those who get scarce flu shots this year:

Bingaman (D) – declined
Udall (D) – declined
Domenici (R) – got it
Wilson (R) – got it
Pearce (R) – got it

No word on whether Romero (D) or King (D) got theirs. Does anyone have national stats? (Bill Frist got his.) This would fit with a paranoid delusion that the Republicans will use flu to keep Dems from the polls. mjh

A few years ago, during battles over campaign finance reform, Republicans made an amazing argument: limits violate freedom of speech. Republicans literally said money is free speech and limits denied one the right to speak (spend). I guess they didn’t see George Soros coming. Now, instead of celebrating his freedom of speech, they denigrate him as a person. mjh

ABQjournal: Speak Up!

IT’S JUST PLAIN old everyday common horse sense. Liberalism can’t be all that great if a liberal won’t admit that he is a liberal. — D.L.P.

At least since Nixon, another great, strong, resolute Republican President, Republicans have spent every waking moment equating Liberalism with communism, socialism and child abuse. At the same time, the Right equates its own views with god, Jesus, the Founders, mainstream America, and everything good. Somehow, the wicked Right has taken over the very government they intend to destroy with this trick.

And still, there are many, many people just like me who aren’t the least bit ashamed or afraid to say: hell yes, I’m a liberal.

At the moment, shame is upon anyone who accepts the lies and misleading of the Radical Right. mjh

Column:Blogs don’t always start dialogue By Manuelita Beck

The medium, with its emphasis on linking, is perfect for spreading the word. Many blogs not only link to other sources within their posts, they also feature links to similar blogs – which is where I see a bit of a problem. …

Maybe it’s just me, but it seems as if the political debate in this country is getting more polarized. People don’t just politely disagree anymore – they almost violently dispute every factoid. I don’t remember this level of loathing in the October before the last presidential election.

Despite being a forum for opinion exchange, there’s actually very little communication going on.

Manuelita-

I’m a blogger. This isn’t a flame, just a response to share a piece of my perspective.

On the one hand, I’m as sad as anybody that things are so polarized. And I don’t mean to deny my part in that.

On the other hand, part of what I want to do in some of my blogs (I have 4 and host several others) is to connect people to information they may not otherwise see. In and of itself, that’s not too sinister. Some of us are paying very close attention to things that most others are not (or are even actively ignoring). My blogs are ripples in a larger wave of information, spreading information.

At the same time, my views are quite obvious. I do try to encourage others to express themselves; and I do read views I disagree with (like Alex Hughes).

It is very interesting to be part of the Internet and Web. Each of us has an opportunity to reach all of us AND to hear from all of us — there have been small scale versions of this (any small gathering), but no universal two-way mechanism before. Some will waste this opportunity, some will screw up, some will abuse it, but it does seem to be changing the way we live, learn and communicate.

peace, mjh

I’m a conservative myself, have been a conservative as long as I’ve been thinking on political matters, and have known any number of conservatives over the decades. And while I’m sure there are ignorant, vitriolic conservatives — or more precisely, pseudo-conserviatives — in the land, after 30 or more years of being a conservative I have only met such people in liberal attacks.

Were conservatives as bad as Hinton claims, I’d have become a liberal about 30 years ago. But we’re not. Quite the contrary. In my experience the best place to locate political hate speech is in liberal expressions — Hinton’s letter being a fine example of this.

Granted that a letter to the editor does not provide infinite room for expatiation, but surely Hinton could have spent a few words on issues rather than putting all his effort into sneers and slurs. By restricting himself to such personal assaults, Hinton has caused liberals to appear to be what he claims conservatives are. — Robert McKay

Regarding Robert McKay’s response to my letter (mjh’s Blog: Radical Right Writer Rants), which was in response to Paul Linkenheimer’s letter [“It’s liberals who are whackos (so feel sorry for them),” 9/2/04]: I’m sorry Mr. McKay didn’t read Linkenheimer’s letter. I’d be interested in his response to that letter. It is interesting that ignorant of anything from Linkenheimer’s letter, McKay is still comfortable assuming that I’m the bad guy.

I respect McKay’s pride in his conservative perspective and his subtle disparagement of my liberal view. I think neither of us is truly objective.

I question one thing from his letter: “I’m sure there are ignorant, vitriolic conservatives — or more precisely, pseudo-conservatives….” I understand and share McKay’s desire to distance himself from the Radical Right, but they call themselves conservatives, they win conservative votes, they repel and repudiate liberals — how can anyone call them ‘pseudo-conservatives’? In fact, I have heard people in the Republican Party who would call McKay the pseudo-conservative if he deviates from the narrowest definition. The Radical Right will not become more inclusive and tolerant in the next 4 years — no matter who wins in November. That’s not hate speech; that’s the truth. mjh

ABQjournal: Letters to the Editor

I HAVE KNOWN Judge Wendy York for many years. She is, without a doubt, one of the finest, most qualified judges New Mexico has ever had. She is smart, wise, dedicated, efficient and judicious.

Her ethics are impeccable; her integrity without reproach. In a past judicial poll, her ratings by all who appeared before her were 96 percent to 98 percent in every category. Despite her many professional accomplishments, she conducts herself without a trace of arrogance.

If those who unfairly malign her over one decision out of thousands had done any research, they would have found that Judge York is eminently worthy of the title “honorable.”

MERRI RUDD
Bernalillo County Probate Judge, Albuquerque

When campaign finance reform was being debated, Republicans bellowed that money was equal to free speech, that limiting anyone’s right to give money to any cause was a violation of free speech (even though this means rich people have more free speech than poor people). Funny, I don’t see Republicans coming to the defense of York’s free speech right. mjh